(Mishnah - R. Akiva): We never find that one brings a Korban for speaking!

Question: R. Akiva himself holds that one who curses Hash-m (b'Shogeg) brings a Korban!

Answer: He means, we never find one who creates a prohibition (that entails a Korban) through speech;

There, the Korban is due to his sin.

Question: The prohibitions of Nezirus come through speech, and they entail Korbanos!

Answer: There, the Korbanos are not for transgressing the prohibitions, rather to (end the Nezirus and) permit him to drink wine.

Question: One creates Hekdesh through speech, and it entails a Korban!

Answer: R. Akiva refers to Isurim that one forbids to himself;

Hekdesh is forbidden to everyone.

Question: Konamos is an Isur to himself!

Answer: He holds that Me'ilah (and therefore Korbanos) do not apply to Konamos.

(Rava): R. Akiva and Chachamim argue in a case that he does not specify, but if he specifies 'I will not eat Mashehu', (all agree that) he is liable for Mashehu.

By specifying, he gives importance to Mashehu, just like a creation.

(Rava): R. Akiva and Chachamim argue in a case that he swears 'I will not eat';

However, if he swore 'I will not taste', he is liable for Mashehu.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that 'tasting' refers to eating (i.e. a k'Zayis), as people commonly say. Rava teaches that this is not so

(Rav Papa): R. Akiva and Chachamim argue only about Shevu'os, but all agree that for Konamos, one is liable for Mashehu.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Also Konamos are like specifying Mashehu, since he does not mention eating.

Question (Beraisa): (If one eats less than a Shi'ur from each of) two Konamos, the amounts join up (to the quantity for liability). Two Shevu'os do not join;

R. Meir says, Konamos are like Shevu'os.

If one is liable for Mashehu for Konamos, there is no need to join up!

Answer #1: The case is, he mentioned 'eating' in each Konam (therefore, he is liable only for a k'Zayis).

Objection: If so, why do they join up? He did not eat (i.e. a k'Zayis) from either!

Answer #2: The case is, he said 'eating from both of these is (forbidden) upon me like Konam (i.e. a Korban).'

Question: If so, the corresponding Shevu'ah is 'I swear that I will not eat from both of them'. Why don't they join up?

Answer (Rav Pinchas): Because oaths are separate regarding Korbanos Chatas (one brings a Korban for each oath violated, even if he did not remember in between), they do not join.

Question: Why does R. Meir say that Konamos are like Shevu'os?

Rav Pinchas' law would explain why Shevu'os do not join, but why don't Konamos join? (Even according to the opinion that Me'ilah applies to Konamos, they are not separate for Korbanos Asham.)

Correction: Rather, R. Meir says that Shevu'os are like Konamos (they join up). He does not agree with Rav Pinchas.

Answer #3 (Ravina): Rav Papa's law is only for lashes. The Beraisa refers only to Korban.

Question: This implies that Chachamim hold that (Korban) Me'ilah applies to Konamos. This is unlike a Beraisa!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one said 'this loaf is Hekdesh', if he or anyone else eats it, they transgress Me'ilah; therefore, it can be redeemed;

If he said 'this loaf is Hekdesh upon me', only he transgresses Me'ilah if he eats it. Therefore, it cannot be redeemed;

Chachamim say, there is no Me'ilah for benefit from Konamos, no matter who eats it.

Answer: The opinions must be switched;

R. Meir says that there is no Me'ilah for benefit from Konamos, no matter who eats it.

Chachamim say that only he transgresses Me'ilah if he eats it.

Question: Why does R. Meir say that Konamos do not join? This implies that Me'ilah applies to them!

Answer: He speaks according to Chachamim.

I hold that Me'ilah does not apply to Konamos;

You hold that it applies, but you should admit that Konamos are like Shevu'os (they do not join).

Chachamim argue. Shevu'os do not join, for Rav Pinchas' reason, but Konamos join.

(Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate dirt, he is exempt.

Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat dirt', how much is he liable for? (He asks about Chachamim, but surely R. Akiva obligates for Mashehu. The same applies to the following two questions.)

Since he said 'eat', he refers to (the quantity of eating,) a k'Zayis;

Or, since it is not normally eaten, he means Mashehu?

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat Chartzan (grape skins or pits), how much is he liable for?

Since they are eaten along with the grape, he refers to the quantity of eating, a k'Zayis;

Or, since they are not normally eaten by themselves, he means Mashehu!

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Ashi): If a Nazir swore 'I will not eat Chartzan', how much is he liable for?

Since a Nazir if forbidden (and liable) for a k'Zayis, he refers to something he was permitted, i.e. less than a k'Zayis;

Or, since he said 'eat', he refers to a k'Zayis!

Answer (Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat', and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable;

R. Shimon exempts him.

Question: Why do Chachamim obligate him? The oath (that Yisrael accepted on Sinai) already obligates him not to eat them (so his oath does not takes effect)!

Answer #1 (Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan): Because his oath takes effect on permitted food, it also takes effect on forbidden food.

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Torah forbids only him from eating a k'Zayis of these things. His oath forbids him from eating Mashehu;

We find this according to Chachamim if he specified (Mashehu), or according to R. Akiva even without specifying.

Culmination of answer: A Nazir eating Chartzan is like a regular person eating Neveilos, and Chachamim say that it applies to Mashehu only if he specifies.

Suggestion: We can resolve Rava's question! (If one swore 'I will not eat dirt', how much is he liable for?)

Just like the quantity of Neveilos (without specifying) is a k'Zayis, also for dirt!

Rejection: No. Rava is unsure about dirt, because it is unfit to eat;

Neveilos are proper to eat, just they are forbidden.

(Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate and drank, he is liable only once (lashes if warned, a Korban if he forgot);

If he swore 'I will not eat and I will not drink' and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.

If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread, he is liable only once.

If he swore 'I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread or spelt bread', and he ate all three, he is liable for each.

If he swore 'I will not drink' and he drank many beverages, he is liable only once;

If he swore 'I will not drink wine, oil or honey' and he drank all three, he is liable for each.

If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate things unfit to eat or drank liquids unfit to drink, he is exempt.

If he swore 'I will not eat', and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable;

R. Shimon exempts him.

If one swore 'Konam, I may not benefit from my wife if I ate today' and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, she is forbidden to him.

(Gemara - R. Chiya bar Avin): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he drank, he is liable.

We can learn this from a verse or from reasoning.

We can learn from reasoning. One says 'let us taste something', and they eat and drink.